probably basic problems with the fs 100

J

johnsonnoise

New member
hey guys,
I've got some problems with the fs 100, I'm not satisfied with the picture quality as I've seen in the great videos here in the community. So I'm pretty sure I've got some problems with the basics although the pro videos here are graded in post, but when you look on my ungraded video, isn't it too noisy? I haven't got the money for nd filters or other lenses so this was shoot with the kit lense by 1080/30p fx . f11 . shutterspeed 1/60 . wb 6200 . ungraded . with the picture profile g-log by Frank Glencairn which isn't a killer profile with my settings cause I do something wrong :), do you have some tips for my performance to reach the amateur level :), would be great, thanks!

 
You're about 2 stops underexposed. If you hit your exposure, it's going to look a lot better. But I'm definitely not seeing any noise.
 
Well, I'll try and kick things off - firstly, it's a dull day. Many of the PPs here are for dealing with high contrast scenes - exteriors on a sunny day, things with high specular highlights and so on. On a dull flat day like this, you may want to try the ITU709 that will put a bit more punch in the scene. Putting all your tonality in to a little band in the middle of your waveform monitor (grey blacks, grey whites) and then pulling them out to fit zero black and 100% white will tear your image quality apart.

THE FS100 IS NOT AN ALEXA! :)

Secondly, you're at 6200K - did you do a white set off a decent white card? The image looks rather cool. Did you 'eyeball' the WB with the scroller? Images in shade or in overcast conditions can be a lot higher colour temperature than even 6200K.

THirdly, you've probably turned detail down to -2 or -3? The images will look a but lacking in bite, even with expensive glass. You'll want to add a little sprinkle of sharpening (like adding salt in cooking) during post production. We don't do it in camera as the camera has to do it 'live' so to speak, and the edit software can take its time. You're not trying to SHARPEN it, just lift the detail to where we can see it.

Thirdly, maybe use less aperture, more shutter speed if you don't have an ND. On static scenes, I won't tell if you won't (but if you do fast pans, you're toast). Please note, as you increase the aperture, you may start hitting 'diffraction' - where the whole image begins to look soft. On small chip cameras, this can start from f5.6 and beyond. Your example on an FS100 with its much larger sensor, is f11 and shouldn't be hitting any diffraction until about f16+, so it's not an issue here, but just raising the point...

Fourthly, Frank's killer secret is that he knows how to light, how to use available light, how to bend light into useful places, and how to soak up light where it isn't needed. He keeps his scenes within 6 stops exposure range using reflectors, shades, even if it's available light, it's controlled light. Thus the extra tonal range his PPs provide get used on all that subtle detail. If you're filming an apple, and the apple is the star, would you give it a little extra sun with an LED lamp to your left? Would you just hold up a white pillowcase just out of shot to enhance its roundness?

In post, would you do a 'luminance key' to find the rather dull sky, then use it to add some blue? or push the contrast to find some drama?

As for the noise, I'd love to show you stuff from my EX1 and Canon 550, which have chickenpox noise compared to the FS100 - yes, there's noise on an FS100 image, but if we call it 'Grain' it looks so much nicer. A little bit of boil. Believe me, this is good when it comes to compression - it keeps the compressor on its toes.

But you're testing - keep testing! Remember, what works in-camera and what works best for your NLE will be very different, but don't try and make your image look like raw Alexa or Epic footage as we FS100 users are working in a very restricted 8 bit world. Alexa and Epic have 4x more room to work with and can seem to do more with less. Then there's the 12 bit BMC camera and the Epic RAW images, where you can literally change the time of day with an image and still have something that looks good.

Please just keep testing! Sometimes its counterintuitive. For example, I'm now using all my 109% whites as 100% based on what I learned playing with Frank's profiles. Frank has a specialised post workflow which means his colour settings suit him. I tent to normalise everything in the Colour Levels to Zero, but now I think I need to do more tests with chromakey. You just got to keep testing. And share! :)

We're hot-rodding the camera equivalent of a baby SUV to play in the same dunes as much bigger beasts.

Hope this helps
 
Like Matt i find Franks PP's to be a perhaps a starting point, but given my choices of post workflow and tools, i'm not using them...

Testing is the best answer, i'd maybe search about and try other PP's esp one's that are not faux-log

If you are shooting with no control over the post chain then shooting to keep video levels makes sense as so many low end software do clip & crush, i have control of the post chain and use software that keep the range intact, so i see any faux-log as sub-optimal... that's just me tho.... but do test and then test again

but i do think you are under exposed in the first place on the test, so it's hard to extrapolate further..

good luck

d
 
thanks for the replies
to sum up MattDavis, what I was wondering about was that the image isnt realy sharp in itself, not sparkling like the videos I can see on vimeo, but you're sure that will come through the post and the compression? And yes I did something wrong with the wb looked better on the lcd... and I didnt want to have such a shiny sky thats why I underexposed too much, but with nd filter this would not happen? And I was wondering if there's more to play around than with my exposure settings, but it's all about the picture profile so I have to try playing :)? So I have passed the rookie status :) and the profile picture knowledge will give me the amateur status?
 
johnsonnoise said:
thanks for the replies
to sum up MattDavis, what I was wondering about was that the image isnt realy sharp in itself, not sparkling like the videos I can see on vimeo, but you're sure that will come through the post and the compression? And yes I did something wrong with the wb looked better on the lcd... and I didnt want to have such a shiny sky thats why I underexposed too much, but with nd filter this would not happen? And I was wondering if there's more to play around than with my exposure settings, but it's all about the picture profile so I have to try playing :)? So I have passed the rookie status :) and the profile picture knowledge will give me the amateur status?
Click to expand...

Like others have mentioned, you should look into working with exposure values. If you want the sky more exposed, you'll need to cut the light somehow. You'll notice you're losing light over the entire scene, so you then have to introduce modifiers. Whether that's a light or reflector, you need to expose the other areas you want to focus on. Using ND is going to cut your light and allow you to shoot at an optimal f-stop.
 
johnsonnoise said:
thanks for the replies
to sum up MattDavis, what I was wondering about was that the image isnt realy sharp in itself, not sparkling like the videos I can see on vimeo, but you're sure that will come through the post and the compression? And yes I did something wrong with the wb looked better on the lcd... and I didnt want to have such a shiny sky thats why I underexposed too much, but with nd filter this would not happen? And I was wondering if there's more to play around than with my exposure settings, but it's all about the picture profile so I have to try playing :)? So I have passed the rookie status :) and the profile picture knowledge will give me the amateur status?
Click to expand...

Looks to me like you missed focus on the apple too which is the reason for the soft image.

There is only so much dynamic range a camera can cope with even if it is an Alexa you still have to expose for the subject of interest and allow parts of the image i.e. sky to blow to white.

A preset is nothing more than icing on the cake and without core camera skills it won't amount to anything useful. Setting the knee and slope effectively just makes the image more pleasing but doesn't add any mythical dynamic range increase. Concentrate on exposing for the subject and things will look tons better immediately.

Expose, focus and frame correctly and your audience will drawn to the subject and not even notice a blown out sky. Only the pixel peeping nobbers you find on forums will but they're now obsessing over at the BMCC forums so you should be fine.

All the best
 
Several weeks ago I did some dull day tests to compare ITU709 with Franks Ultimate profile and found that Franks profile worked very well (with ITU709 I got slightly more punch out of the image, but not very huge difference at all). And yep, it's all about correct exposure and focus like said before.

"Only the pixel peeping nobbers you find on forums will but they're now obsessing over at the BMCC forums so you should be fine." Made me laugh, well said :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top